“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
- Aldous Huxley, English writer
The President vs. The Governor
On March 25th, 2020, the state of New York had the highest number of confirmed coronavirus cases, at more than 30,000. 285 people have already died from the virus within the Empire State.
Concerned about such an outbreak occurring in his state, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo criticized the Trump administration and Congress on March 9th, at a time when cases in New York stood at roughly six dozen. Cuomo’s criticism was simple: the state needed more money.
The governor argued that that $35 million in emergency funding authorized by Congress and the administration for New York was not enough to deal with the virus. This came despite the fact that the president requested even less money for the overall aid package – $2.5 billion as opposed to the overall $8.3 billion which was authorized by Congress.
Cuomo also criticized the Trump administration for pushing mixed messages on the coronavirus.
In response to Cuomo’s criticism, Trump called out the governor for the “political weaponization” of the pandemic. Roughly a week later, the feud continued, with Cuomo arguing that the federal government was “behind from day one of this crisis.” Trump responded with roughly the same message from the preceding week, telling the governor to “keep politics out of it….”
One may think that Cuomo and others critical of the administration would run away from this label. Nobody wants to seem as if they’re politicizing a national crisis, right?
There are those who say that the best (if not only) way for the country to tackle this pandemic is for us all to unite and act collectively. Sure, no argument there.
But here’s a question for anyone who proclaims such a view: what comes next?
We all need to unite in order to respond to the crisis. Ok, how? What are we collectively to do? Who decides the rules and regulations we need to follow? What actions should individuals be incentivized to take? Who decides whether to close down restaurants, bars, and beaches?
Usually, it is elected officials, or people appointed by elected officials. Furthermore, if we are critical of the response (or lack of a response) from those officials, we have the right to criticize them. We also have the right to vote against them.
Everything is politics. Everything. If anything, it is more patriotic, not less, to criticize how your government is handling a public health crisis such as this.
Any national crisis is political by definition. By “politicizing” such a crisis, all one is doing is stating their preferred course of action or criticizing that taken by government officials. Perfectly normal behavior in a republic.
The response from Cuomo and others who the president and his allies charge with “politicizing the coronavirus” should not be to deny the accusation.
It should be: “Yes, and?”
A Weakened Start
One would not have to look back very far to see the administration’s shortcomings in dealing with the coronavirus. But that does not mean one shouldn’t.
In fact, it is quite necessary. If we are to explore the full extent of how the policies of the Trump administration magnified the damage done to the country by the coronavirus, we need to begin before the outbreak even began.
In April 2018, Tom Bossert, Trump’s homeland security advisor, who “had called for a comprehensive biodefense strategy against pandemics and biological attacks,” was fired with little notice.
One month later, Navy Rear Admiral R. Timothy Ziemer, the Senior Director for Global Health Security and Biothreats on the National Security Council, saw himself let go and his position abolished. Not only that, but Ziemer’s entire team tasked with responding to a potential pandemic was disbanded.
The president’s defenders will point out that some members of this team were moved to other parts of the NSC, and argue that it was a simple reorganizational matter.
However, the simple fact is that Ziemer was removed without replacement and there was a lack of a specific office to address pandemics. This came despite the fact that, as will be seen, experts have been warning about a major outbreak for years.
The move reflected an attitude that pandemic responsiveness was no longer a priority on the National Security Council.
Several months before the outbreak spread in China, Dr. Linda Quick, a CDC official tasked with monitoring and coordinating with China’s disease control agency was removed from her post and not replaced.
Bao-Ping Zhu, who previously served in Quick’s position, said that “Quick was in an ideal position to be the eyes and ears on the ground for the United States and other countries on the coronavirus outbreak, and might have alerted them to the growing threat weeks earlier.”
When asked by a reporter about the eliminated position, Trump could have made the reasonable argument that the removal of Quick did not dramatically change the outcome for the United States, as had been made by several health officials. But Trump did not address the question at all.
He instead attacked the press for alleged mistruths told about his administration, and then lied by saying “Every one of those things that was said were 100 percent wrong, and this sounds like another one.” The president then passed the question to CDC Director Robert Redfield.
While the Trump administration failed in their plan to cut the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps by 40%, it has simply refused to replace officers in that organization once they retire in order to achieve a similar end.
The administration also pushed for and succeeded in eliminating the versatile $30 million Complex Crisis Fund in 2018, which would have dealt with pandemics like the coronavirus.
Furthermore, the administration has weakened the state of the American healthcare system at a broader level, which has implications for the coronavirus outbreak. While it is true that Trump waived fees for coronavirus testing on March 18th, it is possible that many Americans are unaware of this fact.
Roughly 10% of Americans are uninsured, and much of this group are chronically uninsured. 27% of the uninsured population said that they frequently forgo seeing the doctor and seeking care even when they feel ill due to the cost.
This means that many who feel symptoms and could potentially have the virus do not go in for testing, which makes it more difficult to track the disease’s growth. Because of the Affordable Care Act, a large portion of the uninsured could have obtained health insurance over the past several years – simply by signing up.
However, in the early months of the Trump presidency, the administration took funds allotted by the law to promote the healthcare marketplace – and used them to run an advertising campaign against the Affordable Care Act.
It is easy for the president’s defenders to look at all of these actions and plead ignorance.
“Well ok, it’s not fair that you’re citing these things the administration did, because nobody knew that the coronavirus pandemic was coming. Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt – hindsight is 20/20.”
Let’s not.
The Most Serious Threat
The fact is that various experts and think-tanks have been warning about such a pandemic in recent years.
The independent Center for Strategic and International Studies warned in a study that the U.S. was in a “cycle of crisis and complacency,” in regard to pandemic and public health. The CSIS warned that the U.S. was “woefully ill-prepared to respond to global health security threats.”
In another piece, the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board stated that the chances of another global pandemic on the scale of influenza was growing, and that the entire world was unprepared.
In 2012, a third think-tank, the RAND Corporation, concluded that “only pandemics posed an existential danger” to the United States when analyzing threats to the country.
In 2018, at about the time the pandemic response team was eliminated, the Director for Medical Preparation and Biodefense at the National Security Council, warned that “the threat of pandemic flu is our number-one health security concern.”
I could go on.
A lack of knowledge on the risk of a pandemic is no defense of the administration’s actions.
Unsurprisingly, the president himself continuously gives this very defense. On March 19th, Trump referred to the pandemic as “something that just surprised the whole world” and had the audacity to claim that “Nobody knew there would be a pandemic or epidemic of this proportion.”
Ignoring the Problem
While the aforementioned moves by the Trump administration certainly paved the way for the coronavirus, they pale in comparison to the damage caused by Trump’s statements and lack of action once the pandemic reached America’s shores.
On January 22nd, one day after the CDC confirmed the first case of the virus in the U.S., Trump expressed confidence that China was being transparent about the disease, and two days later again praised the Chinese government for their transparency.
He praised China again on February 7th, saying that they “will be successful” in stopping the coronavirus.
At a February 28th rally in South Carolina, Trump mocked the Democrats for criticizing his administration, joking that the coronavirus outbreak was “their new hoax.” The president also downplayed the risk of the virus, comparing it to the common flu.
Perhaps more disturbingly, the president cited the fact that there were only 15 cases in the United States at the time as evidence for his administration’s success. Saying “But you know, we did something that’s been pretty amazing. We’re 15 people in this massive country. And because of the fact that we went early, we went early, we could have had a lot more than that.”
Of course, this ignores the fact that the coronavirus had just spread to America. In fact, officials in Trump’s own administration at the time accurately described the spread of the virus in the United States as inevitable.
Hours after Trump’s rally that day, the first American died from the coronavirus.
At the same time, Larry Kudlow, the National Economic Council Director, appeared on CNBC and said that the administration had contained the virus, describing the containment as “pretty close to airtight.”
Even many Republican lawmakers were surprised at this contradiction in messaging.
Finally, on February 29th, Trump admitted that “additional cases in the United States are likely.”
At this time, the actions taken by the Trump administration were few and far between. However, the largest of these were the aforementioned request of $2.5 billion (a number which the legislature balked at and provided $8.3 billion), and a series of travel bans.
But it is clear in public health literature that travel bans are ineffective at preventing the spread of viruses. In an event hosted by Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in 2019, international public health experts agreed that travel bans were actually counterproductive in dealing with pandemics, due to the need for international cooperation.
A World Health Organization committee in February concurred, saying that measures to stop the coronavirus should not include “any travel or trade restriction.”
It is worth noting that most prominent Democrats refrained from harshly criticizing Trump’s travel bans. Perhaps it is the case that while doing so would be in line with many experts, taking such a position would be to their political detriment.
On Our Shores
Once the coronavirus began to spread across the United States, many state governments turned to the federal government for help in combatting the pandemic. On March 16th, Trump responded to state officials requesting government aid in purchasing medical supplies by saying that states “can get them faster by getting them on their own.”
This claim misses the point. States do have their own supply chains, but because there is a national shortage of medical supplies – such as N95 respiratory masks for medical professionals – they must compete with each other in a bidding war for limited supplies.
This bidding war has led to price increases for the supplies across the board.
A way to combat this shortage would be for the president to invoke the Defense Production Act, a 1950s law which would enable the federal government to order factories to dramatically increase production of supplies and prevent price increases.
After pressure from state leaders and even members of his own party, Trump finally invoked the DPA last week – but then refused to actually use it. Despite the medical supply shortage, Vice President Pence claimed that using the act was unnecessary.
In another attempt to justify not invoking the DPA, Trump argued that he didn’t have to invoke the act because no company “has said no” to producing more masks. Again, Trump misses the point.
Of course, companies will increase production as demand for medical supplies increases, but using the powers of the DPA would reduce costs and expedite production so the equipment could go to areas where it is needed most. The federal government could then coordinate the virus relief effort by using its massive purchasing and logistical power, and end the counterproductive bidding war among the states.
At a news briefing on March 22nd, the president defended his lack of DPA use by saying “Call a person over in Venezuela; ask them how did nationalization of their businesses work out.”
This comment is peak misinformation, as nowhere in the Defense Production Act is there anything allowing the nationalization of businesses.
At the same time, Trump also argued that car manufacturers were stepping up to fill the ventilator shortage. “General Motors, Ford, so many companies — I had three calls yesterday directly, without having to institute like: `You will do this’ — these companies are making them right now.”
This is a lie. While GM recently announced it would do what it can to assist Ventec Life Systems in ventilator production, neither GM nor Ford are making any ventilators themselves. In fact, like other automakers, both companies have shuttered their factories to prevent the transmission of the coronavirus among workers.
Follow the Leader(?)
As Trump has largely left states and localities to fend for themselves against the pandemic, many Republican-led states have adopted his attitude towards the virus.
On March 16th, West Virginia’s Republican Governor Jim Justice said that “if you want to go to Bob Evans and eat, go to Bob Evans and eat.” Two days earlier, Oklahoma’s Republican Governor Kevin Stitt tweeted a picture of himself and his family in a packed restaurant.
Florida’s GOP Governor, Ron DeSantis, has come under intense pressure for refusing to enact a statewide public beach closure.
Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patricks (R) suggested that he and other senior citizens were willing to risk their health and lives if it meant less damage to the economy because of the coronavirus.
In an interview with Tucker Carlson, Patricks claimed that “Those of us who are 70 plus, we’ll take care of ourselves. But don’t sacrifice the country.” Except, as countless public health experts have warned, the elderly can’t “take care of themselves” in regards to the coronavirus.
Of the 27 states which have not ordered all non-essential businesses to close, 20 are led by Republican governors.
Republican voters themselves have followed the lead of the president and other GOP officials. In a large survey conducted by The Economist, Republicans consistently showed less support than Democrats for requiring people to work from home, for cancelling large meetings, and for closing schools and universities.
In the same survey, Republicans consistently said they were less worried than Democrats about the virus, and were less likely to consider working from home.
America and the World
At this point, the defenders of the Republican Party and its leader may say that, despite the criticisms of their coronavirus response (if you can call it a response) I have outlined, the United States is still in a better position vis-à-vis the pandemic than many other countries.
In other words, they argue that the outrage over the Trump administration’s policies here is overblown.
One article on the Fox News website stated, correctly, that a late-2019 study by Johns Hopkins University found that the United States was the best-prepared country in the world for a pandemic. The study the article referred to was the Global Health Security Index, which ranks countries on their pandemic-response abilities.
However, if one actually bothered to look at the Index itself, they would learn two important pieces of information not mentioned in the Fox News article.
First, while the United States was praised, rightfully, for many aspects of its infrastructure in dealing with a pandemic, it ranked 54th globally in exercising response plans, and 175th globally in healthcare access.
However, the more important point for our purposes is a caveat to the study. The writers of the GHSI described on their website that the Index provides important information on the health infrastructure and security of every country, and gives a risk assessment for a pandemic.
However, immediately after this, the site reads “Knowing the risks, however, is not enough. Political will is needed to protect people from the consequences of epidemics, to take action to save lives, and to build a safer and more secure world.”
Simply put, leadership matters. Competence matters. And that is not something that can easily be taken into account in an assessment of a nation’s preparedness for a crisis.
Contrary to what the Fox News piece states, the GHSI is not “an assessment seemingly at odds with claims by Democrats that the Trump administration left the country vulnerable to the ongoing coronavirus outbreak.”
Furthermore, it makes absolutely no sense to judge how a nation is responding to a pandemic by looking at a readiness study from before the pandemic.
It is much more beneficial to look at the outcomes across different countries during the crisis. Outcomes which the president and his defenders would rather not talk about.
In South Korea, more than 300,000 coronavirus tests have been done to date. In the United States, the healthcare system is so unorganized that there is no official count of tests. However, one official on the White House Coronavirus Task Force gave an estimate of roughly 170,000 tests administered.
South Korea’s population is six times smaller than that of the United States.
In a study done of tests conducted per millions of people, the U.S. fell dramatically behind Japan, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Israel, Italy, China’s Guangdong Province, and South Korea.
At this point, Trump’s defenders may argue that this comparison is not fair, as the virus arrived earlier in some countries than others. However, this study was conducted in March, at a time when the coronavirus was already in the United States for quite some time.
Yet, even with what little testing there has been, America still had the highest rate of coronavirus growth in the world, at least among more developed nations.
As of March 21st, the U.S. was ranked by – you guessed it – Johns Hopkins University as being in last place for limiting the growth of the coronavirus.
At a March 15th press conference, Donald Trump advised Americans on the virus: “Relax, we’re doing great.”
Politicization
The coronavirus deserves to be politicized.
Donald Trump has consistently downplayed the threat of the coronavirus. He has overseen the downgrading and firing of experts within his administration to deal with the virus, and has ignored and contradicted the advice of those who remain.
He has scolded the news media and anybody who has dared to question his actions leading up to and during the pandemic, despite the fact that those very actions may have amplified the suffering of American citizens.
He refuses to use the resources at the disposal of the federal government to adequately combat the crisis, and instead delegates his responsibilities to the states, who cannot possibly handle the virus themselves.
Furthermore, his party has followed his lead, with many Republican leaders similarly refusing to take action against the coronavirus and expressing the same ignorance as him. His attitude has even spread to the Republican rank-and-file, which has led to many American citizens putting themselves in danger.
All the while, he has pretended that the United States is doing well in comparison to the rest of the world, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary.
The finger-pointing will continue, with the fingers being pointed squarely, and unapologetically, at the president and his party.
It is rare that elections are decided on a single issue. But I firmly believe that the pandemic and the subsequent economic fallout it causes will prove 2020 is an exception. Let that be a reminder to the Democrats.
Don’t buy into “lets-all-come-togetherism.” Don’t let the president deflect from the issue. Don’t run away from this third rail.
Instead, grab it, and use it to deliver a richly-deserved defeat at the ballot box to Donald Trump, because America deserves nothing less.
Don’t let incompetence win again.